Letters to the Editor, March 3

“Diverse world” (Letters, March 1) and “Importance of ethnic studies” (Letters, March 1) grabbed my attention because they stressed the importance of college students actually learning how to think. In the same vein, I am concerned about companies like Oracle and Facebook operating their own high schools, providing everything from food to transportation to exercise facilities. Are these to be the new “company” schools? In addition, I did not see one girl in the photos accompanying “A campus within Oracle’s campus?” (Feb. 27), although one was quoted in the article. Just as I agree with the writers stressing a comprehensive college education, I believe the same about the high schools. I would like to see these companies invest in the public schools but not try to control the educational content. Frankly, I’m a bit leery of their true motivation.

June Baxter, Half Moon Bay

Full potential

I’m glad Hillary Clinton has begun to voice the same issues as Sen. Bernie Sanders, but the words in her South Carolina victory speech “So every single American can have that chance to live up to his or her God-given potential” are worth examining. Did former President George W. Bush live up to his potential? Did Donald Trump? Did all the one percenters? Or did some (many?) live well beyond their potential? I am not sure that Clinton grasps the hidden, patronizing tone of her words. Sanders voices the same issue, but he talks more about leveling the entire field than about helping the lowest economic class do better.

Mary White, San Francisco

Leash your dog

The proposed Golden Gate National Recreation Area off-leash dog rules, as covered last week by The Chronicle, are a good solution to a long-simmering problem. I think of the loud protests for off-leash rights every time I step in dog waste or witness a dog harassing shore birds at Ocean Beach. Off-leash dog advocates call the GGNRA areas in San Francisco urban parks, a term suggesting that these areas are not intended to support endangered animals. To me urban parks mean shared spaces for many uses, not one use that trumps all others. We humans and our pets are tourists in the GGNRA, urban or not; the birds and other wild creatures are the actual residents. It is by how we treat the locals that we are judged. I know many dog owners who accept that pet ownership is their personal choice and not the park service’s responsibility. If your dog truly needs an open field for exercise, maybe you should take it to the suburbs where that activity can be accommodated. Otherwise, I invite you to put your dog on a leash and visit the GGNRA. It is a place to be respected for its beauty.

Don Bullick, San Francisco

Wrong analogy

Regarding “Smear tactics return” (Open Forum): I disagree with Professor Jonathan Zimmerman. When considering a candidate, most of us start by looking at the supporters, namely his or her political party. Zimmerman’s analogy with communism in the 1960s is a red herring. He notes their “rhetoric of racial freedom in the United States,” but writes that off to “a highly romanticized notion” of the party. When reality struck, namely the 1956 Soviet invasion of Hungary, membership in the Communist Party USA plummeted. Regarding the Communist Party USA’s views on race, he apparently has never heard of the Greensboro massacre. Candidates have no control over who endorses them, but we should pay close attention to who supports a candidate, and more importantly why. Our Constitution guarantees the right of David Duke to openly share his opinions, but anybody who does not clearly disavow such opinions should not be our president.

Robert Plantz, Santa Rosa

Justify investment

Regarding “Democratic politics trump Trump cash” (March 1): Debra J. Saunders makes clever, if dubious, use of punctuation (specifically quotation marks). In doing so, she equates Tom Steyer’s motivation in registering voters to the Koch brothers “giving” to conservative causes (see, I can be clever, too). Voter registration is a nonpartisan pursuit. I don’t believe you can ask applicants whether they intend to be Democrats before you sign them up. I don’t think the Koch brothers’ intentions can be characterized as such. They have been ardent supporters of the American Legislative Exchange Council, which drafts legislation for states aimed at loosening gun and environmental legislation, weakening organized labor, and tightening voter rules. As well, they endow whole departments in universities, “suggesting” appropriate curriculum in exchange for their generosity (there go those pesky quotation marks again). Politicians of all stripes are vacuums when it comes to contributions, and until Donald Trump transformed into a xenophobic, crude demagogue, I’m sure his money looked plenty justifiable to liberals.

Joel Wiener, San Carlos

Don’t blame rich

Regarding “Readjust wealth” (Letters, March 1): The author would like to “fix up the country and save the planet” by “taking enough money from the rich.” This naive philosophy, when attempted, has failed miserably throughout history. Did the writer realize that wealthy people pay substantial taxes, establish worthwhile foundations and charitable organizations, donate significant amounts to hospitals and institutions of learning, and create jobs? Was the writer thinking of taking from rich businesspeople, or is he including movie stars and sports figures who bring in millions of dollars each year?